alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1998
<CASH>                                         563,836
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,472
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    167,848
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               965,335
<PP&E>                                       8,826,493
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,383,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,281,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,198,960
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,839
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,666,574
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,281,341
<SALES>                                     16,022,471
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,022,471
<CGS>                                        6,041,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,932,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             511,531
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,270,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,270,293)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED




PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report of SpectraScience, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
      as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on his
      knowledge: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
      covered in the Report.




/s/
                James DorstJames
                Dorst,
              Chief
                Financial OfficerDated:
              March 28, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EASTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE ROOSEVELT-BENTMAN TRUST 

FOR AMERICAN VOTERS 

PETITION OF: PETER J. WIRS, 

TRUSTEE 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 89 EM 2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
IIB 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1484 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2011 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 

appeals process of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 1484 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Appeals Im3 provement Act of 2011’’. 

4 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF REGIONAL OFFICE JURISDICTION OVER 

5 INCORPORATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVI6 DENCE INTO PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED 

7 CLAIMS. 

8 (a) WAIVER.—Section 7104 of title 38, United States 

9 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

10 subsection: 

11 ‘‘(f) If a claimant or the claimant’s representative 

12 submits new evidence in support of a case for which a sub13 stantive appeal has been filed, such evidence shall be sub14 mitted to the Board directly and not to the agency of juris15 diction, unless the claimant or the claimant’s representa16 tive requests that the evidence be reviewed by the agency 

17 of jurisdiction before being submitted to the Board.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (f) of section 

19 7104 of title 38, United States Code, as added by sub20 section (a) of this section, shall apply with respect to 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 1484 RFS

1 evidence submitted on or after the date that is 90 days 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 31, 2011. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL GORDON WHITMORE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JEFFER Y DORT, Asst. District Attorney, SD County; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 16

- 55264

D.C. No. 3:14

- cv

- 02949

- DMS

BGS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA

, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Paul Gordon Whitmore appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due

process violations arising from his conviction and sentenc e

. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 21 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 55264

under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1291. We re view de novo

. Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9th Cir. 2000) (d ismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A ); Barren v. Harrington , 152

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)). W e

may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v.

Polaris Pictures Corp ., 159 F.3d 412, 418 (9th Cir. 1998) , and w e affirm.

To the extent that success on Whitmore’s due process claim s would

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence , the district court

properly concluded that Whitmore’s action is Heck

- barred because Whitmore

failed to allege facts demonstrating that his conviction or sentence has been

invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey

, 512 U.S. 477, 486

- 87 (1994).

To the extent that succe ss on Whitmore ’s due process claim s would not

necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, dismissal of

Whitmore’s due process claim s w as proper because Whitmore failed to allege facts

sufficient to show any cognizable injury

. See Long v. County of Los Angeles , 442

F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (“To state a claim under § 19 83, a plaintiff must

allege . . . that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was

violated[.]”) ; Wright v. Riveland , 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth

elements of a procedural due process claim).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.1

Summary of Approved Changes to the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Primary License Agreements
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
ACTION                                  EFFECTIVE DATE  EXPLANATION
<S>                                     <C>             <C>
Replace the entire Exhibit 1 with	N/A		Correction to the Plan(s') ownership of any for-profit
the new Exhibit 1.					controlled affiliate under paragraph 2(E)2 of the
                                                        Controlled Affiliate License Agreements, to properly reflect
                                                        changes that were previously approved by the BCBSA Board and Member Plans.
</TABLE>
Revised excerpt of Controlled Affiliate License Agreements, Paragraph 2(E)2:

In addition, a Plan or Plans directly or indirectly through wholly-owned
subsidiaries shall own more than 50% of any for-profit Controlled Affiliate.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
ACTION                                  EFFECTIVE DATE  EXPLANATION
<S>                                     <C>             <C>
Replace the entire Exhibit 3 with	June 15, 2001	Amended Exhibit 3 revising the definition of
the new Exhibit 3.                                      national accounts allowing a local plant, office, or division headquarters
                                                        of an entity to be considered a separate national account when it has
                                                        employees in more than one Plan service area and independent health benefit
                                                        decision making authority for division's employees.
</TABLE>
Revised excerpt of Primary License Agreements, Exhibit 3 Guidelines With Respect
to Use of Licensed Name and Marks in Connection with National Accounts:

Exhibit 3 - Guidelines:

2.      A National Account is an entity with employee and/or retiree locations
in more than one Plan's Service Area. Unless otherwise agreed, a National
Account is deemed located in the Service Area in which the corporate
headquarters of the National Account is located. A local plant, office or
division headquarters of an entity may be deemed a separate National Account
when that local plant, office or division headquarters 1) has employee locations
in more than one Service Area, and 2) has independent health benefit decision-
making authority for the employees working at such local plant, office or
division headquarters and for employees working at other locations outside the
Service Area. In such a case, the local plant, office or division headquarters
is a National Account that is deemed located in the Service Area in which such
local plant, office or division headquarters is located. The Control Plan of a
National Account is the Plan in whose Service Area the National Account is
located. A participating ("Par") Plan is a Plan in whose Service Area the
National Account has employee and/or retiree locations, but in which the
National Account is not located.
#### Luther L. OSBORNE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27617.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 20, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. .

PER CURIAM.

The offense is murder with malice; the punishment ten years in the penitentiary.

Appellant has filed his personal affidavit stating that he no longer desirés to prosecute this appeal and requests that the same be dismissed.

This request is accordingly granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) of OPNET
Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Mel F. Wesley, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 5, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/    MEL F.
WESLEY                      
|                        |  |     |  | Mel F. Wesley                             
|                        |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### James F. GENTSCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 30769.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1959.

Jack W. Knight, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Thomas D. White and Samuel H. Robertson, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The information was in three counts, all of which were submitted to the jury. Count 1 charged negligent homicide in the first degree.

Counts 2 and 3 charged negligent homicide in the second degree, while engaged in the commission of a misdemeanor. The latter counts were referred to in the court’s charge as “second degree, first count” and “second degree, second count.”

The jury’s verdict reads: “We, the jury find the defendant guilty of Negligent Homicide in the second degree, first count, and assess his punishment at 545 days five hundred and forty five days in jail.”

The punishment assessed by the jury was one authorized for such offense. Art. 1242, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.

The judgment entered recites the jury’s verdict and adjudges appellant “guilty of negligent homicide, as charged in the first count of the information.”

The judgment is reformed so as to conform to the verdict and adjudge appellant guilty of negligent homicide of the second degree, as charged in the first of the two counts charging that offense.

The record contains no statement of facts and no bills of exception.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 Michael V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the
sole Manager of Vestin Fund I, LLC (the Registrant), and Lance K. Bradford,
as Chief Financial Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that  (1)
    
    the Registrants Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the
applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant. Dated: August 9, 2004
    
    /s/ Michael V. ShustekMichael V. Shustek*Chief Executive Officerof Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,Manager of the Registrant
 Dated: August 9, 2004
    
    /s/ Lance K. BradfordLance K. Bradford*Chief Financial Officerof Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,Manager of the Registrant
 * Michael V. Shustek and Lance K. Bradford function, respectively, as the
equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 154 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 154

 To prohibit the use of funds for implementation or enforcement of any 
             Federal mandate to purchase health insurance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 2011

   Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Coffman of 
 Colorado, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. 
Hall, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Simpson, 
  Mr. Olson, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Jones, and Mrs. 
McMorris Rodgers) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the use of funds for implementation or enforcement of any 
             Federal mandate to purchase health insurance.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund the Individual Mandate Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT OR ENFORCE FEDERAL 
              MANDATE TO PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE.

    None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to any 
Federal department or agency may be used to implement or enforce any 
Federal mandate to purchase health insurance.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of National  Home Health Care Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert
P. Heller, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934;  and

          (2)  The information  contained in the report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the Company.

October 29, 2002

                                          /s/ Robert P. Heller
                                          -----------------------------------
                                          Robert P. Heller
                                          Principal Financial Officer
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

 

No. 95-10014

Summary Calendar 

 

 

HOWARD R. WATSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF DALLAS TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:94 CV 320 T)

 

August 25, 1995

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the

following reasons:

1. Watson has failed to allege facts indicating that any

policy-making official for the City of Dallas implemented an

official policy that resulted in the alleged constitutional injury;

further, he has failed to establish the existence of a persistent,

widespread practice of city officials or employees, which is so
 

1 We do not address Watson's claim that the district court

should have allowed him to amend his complaint because it is

raised for the first time on appeal. 

-2-

common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly

represents city policy.

2. The City of Dallas is immune from Watson's state law

claims of assault, defamation, false arrest, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress.1

AFFIRMED.
# Journal officiel C 252A/12 j

| | ISSN 1977-0936 |
| --- | --- |
| Journal officiel
  de l'Union européenne | C 252A |
| | |
| Édition de langue française | Communications et informations | 59e année12 juillet 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0936

Journal officiel

de l'Union européenne

C 252A

Édition de langue française

Communications et informations

59e année12 juillet 2016

---

| Numéro d'information | Sommaire | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Avis |
| | PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES |
| | Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO) |
| 2016/C 252 A/01 | Liste de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AD/306/15 — Juristes-linguistes (AD 7) de langue française (FR) | 1 |

Numéro d'information

Sommaire

page

V   Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

2016/C 252 A/01

Liste de réserve — Concours général EPSO/AD/306/15 — Juristes-linguistes (AD 7) de langue française (FR)

1

---

| FR | |
| --- | --- |

FR

---

V Avis

PROCÉDURES ADMINISTRATIVES

Office européen de sélection du personnel (EPSO)

| 12.7.2016 | FR | Journal officiel de l'Union européenne | CA 252/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2016

FR

Journal officiel de l'Union européenne

CA 252/1

---

LISTE DE RÉSERVE

Concours général EPSO/AD/306/15

Juristes-linguistes (AD 7) de langue française (FR)

(2016/C 252 A/01)

| DUCOUP | Audrey |
| --- | --- |
| JOHN | Hywel Alexandre |
| LAMBERTY | Mathias |
| LANGLOIS-FAURE | Delphine |
| LEFEBVRE | Bérenger |
| LIGHTBOURNE | Muriel |
| LILAMAND | Thomas |
| LIVOLSI | Thomas |
| MARNIER | Claire-Agnès |
| PETROVAS | Sotirios |
| RAULET | Ivana |
| RIGER-BROWN | Sebastian |
| SANTELLI | Françoise |
| VAN MICHEL | Fabrice |
| WARIN | Catherine |

DUCOUP

Audrey

JOHN

Hywel Alexandre

LAMBERTY

Mathias

LANGLOIS-FAURE

Delphine

LEFEBVRE

Bérenger

LIGHTBOURNE

Muriel

LILAMAND

Thomas

LIVOLSI

Thomas

MARNIER

Claire-Agnès

PETROVAS

Sotirios

RAULET

Ivana

RIGER-BROWN

Sebastian

SANTELLI

Françoise

VAN MICHEL

Fabrice

WARIN

Catherine

La validité de la liste expirera le 30 juin 2019.

---
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global  Innovative  Systems,  Inc. on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2003,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Robert Fletcher,
Chief Financial  Officer and Chief Operations  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)      the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

/s/ Robert Fletcher
Robert Fletcher, CFO and COO
Date: August 14, 2003

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.